City of Auburn Planning Board
Tuesday, September 7, 2004 7:30 PM, MEMORIAL City Hall
Present: John Rogalski, Sandra Craner, Nicki Wright, Laurie Michelman. Absent: Mark DiVietro, John Breanick, Sam Giangreco
Staff: Steve Lynch, OPED Director; Nancy Hussey, Assistant Corporation Counsel; Tom Weed, APD; Brian Hicks, Sr. Code Enforcement Officer.
The Chair called the meeting to order. The Pledge of Allegiance was recited and roll was called.
Agenda Item 1: Approval of minutes of August 3, 2004 and August 25, 2004.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the minutes of August 3, 2004. Motion made by Nicki Wright, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried. There is not a quorum for the August 25, 2004 minutes so they are tabled.
Agenda Item 2: Site Plan Review at 149 York St. for storage building.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Joseph Sofo, Jr. – wishes to build another building adjacent to an existing one to maintain and service equipment during the off-season.
Chair asks the public for any comments. There are none. This portion of the public hearing is closed. The Board is asked for comments. There are none. Staff is asked for comments.
Steve Lynch – this is a 6.5-acre site on York St. in a C (General Commercial) zone and is a permitted use for storage and maintenance inside an enclosed structure. In 1999 a building was built for interior storage and maintenance as the site was being used for the storage and that is not an allowed use. The Board may look at the zoning in this area at some point in the future for a possible zone change to Industrial (I), which it had been used as historically, but that is not going to change the permitted uses now applicable to the site. If exterior storage does become a legal use, the materials stored at the site will need to be screened from view from the street. The issue at hand before the board tonight is the erection of a building next to an existing one – for internal storage and
maintenance – this is an allowed use at this site. There is a federally regulated wetland surrounding the area that requires a 100-foot buffer but this site falls outside of that buffer. Staff recommends approval without screening of the building – as the building is set back far from the roadway, and there are no requirements to screen buildings. It is the staff recommendation that if the storage of materials on site does at some future time become a permitted use, than the Board at that time should require adequate buffering of the site for all external storage. For the current project, the DRC is recommending a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the plan as submitted.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the site plan. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 3: Site Plan Review at 5500 Technology Park Blvd. Building and parking lot expansion.
Chair asks for the owner or agent to speak.
John Rossi, representing Mack Studios, application if for approval of a site plan for an addition to an existing building at the rear. Access is from Allen St. and parking lot is off of Tech. Park Blvd.. There will be 10 new employees. Architect’s rendering show additional landscaping and parking. Parking has been increased and is adequate. The property backs up to City property and there are no neighbors.
Chair asks for comments from the public. There being none, closes this portion of the public hearing and asks the Board for comments. There are none, moves on to staff comments.
Steve Lynch – this is a small extension of a permitted use. Parking extension is to allow parking adjacent to the building. There is adequate woodland buffering on the west side and at the front along the road. Because the ordinance allows existing buffers to be retained as part of the required landscape screening, additional buffering is not required by code. Staff recommends a negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan as shown.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by John Rogalski. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair asks for a motion to approve the site plan. Motion made by Nicki Wright, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Agenda Item 4: Site Plan Review at 75 Owasco St, Parking area improvements.
Chair invites owner or agent to speak.
Jim Hutchinson, South St. – Closed on property last November, began some work and is ready to resume complete renovations. Apartments and the exterior will be done with some renovations of the commercial space. Has requested sidewalks and curbing. Wants to move the parking access to the north end. Found that more work was required to bring the parking lot into compliance per code. Will provide a 10’ x 62’ buffered green area across the front and reorient parking spaces from north/south to east/west. Will also install a four-foot vinyl chain link fence along the north side property line - mostly to stop foot traffic cutting through. Problem is since it’s been vacant so long it’s lost its pre-existing non-conformity with regard to parking area compliance.
Doesn’t want to install the required buffer along north parking area perimeter; there is existing heavily planted buffer along the west parking area perimeter. There is an existing vinyl fence along west side belonging to neighbor.
Chair asks for comments from the public. There being none closes this portion of the public hearing and asks the board for comments.
Sandra Craner- asks where is Bradford St. in relation to the proposed access?
Jim Hutchinson – almost exactly opposite.
John Rogalski – happy that something is being done there.
Chair – asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – a 4’ buffer along the perimeter is required unless already existing. Although there are some space constraints shown on the plan, room could be made for the buffer by making the parking spaces smaller (reducing width from 10’ wide to 9’ wide). There is enough existing buffer at the rear of the property. There are no other issues aside from the required buffer. This is a case of working to bring the whole property inot compliance with code and obtain a CO (Certificate of Occupancy); this is the reason that they have come to the Board. The staff recommendation is to require installation of the 4’ buffer in addition to the fence as required by Code. With that provision, a recommendation for negative declaration on SEQR and approval of the site plan is made.
Chair – questions the details of the required buffer.
Nancy Hussey – approval can be made contingent on ZBA if a variance is sought.
Steve Lynch – this would be another option, allowing the applicant to be able to get started right away.
Chair – asks Jim Hutchinson his desires – install 4’ buffer or seek variance?
Jim Hutchinson – not sure – what would buffer have to consist of?
Steve Lynch – remove asphalt and install proper amount of trees/shrubs.
Nicki Wright – there are 18 parking spaces?
Jim Hutchinson – yes, there will be when completed. No more than that is anticipated.
Chair – asks how the Board feels concerning the buffer.
Nicki Wright – install buffer or go to ZBA?
Chair – we could require the buffer or make approval contingent on ZBA approval.
John Rogalski – it would be 132’ long?
Chair – correct. It is up to the Board to make a determination.
Nicki Wright – if ZBA isn’t done it returns to the Board?
Chair – yes – this is the same side of the property as the fence? (yes) There is already a fence but not the required vegetation buffer.
Jim Hutchinson – removing the asphalt would be difficult.
Chair – recommends moving forward and to allow for ZBA to look at. Asks for staff comments.
Steve Lynch – the SEQR is straightforward. It is a previously improved lot. Recommends negative declaration on SEQR and approval of site plan requiring the buffer. The Resolution could acknowledge the applicant’s option of seeking a variance on the required buffer. If the applicant gets the variance – the applicant would not be required to return to the board – the remainder of the site plan components would remain in force.
Chair asks for a motion for a negative declaration on SEQR. Motion made by Nicki Wright, seconded by Sandra Craner. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Steve Lynch – suggests that the resolution include the required buffer or ZBA approval or the variance.
Chair - asks for a motion to approve the site plan with either the 4’ buffer or a variance for same from the ZBA. If ZBA disapproves, the buffer is to be installed without requiring return to the Planning Board. Motion made by John Rogalski, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
Chair thanks the mayor for attending. Next meeting is 10/5/04 at 7:30. Asks for a motion to adjourn. Motion made by Sandra Craner, seconded by Nicki Wright. All members vote approval. Motion carried.
| 
